Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

formidable army in one quarter, while William invaded the island in another. The emperor, Henry IV., of Germany engaged to protect the dominions of Normandy in the absence of its prince; and the pope, Alexander II., gave his sanction to the enterprise, by pronouncing Harold an usurper, and directing a sentence of excommunication against all who should adhere to his interest.

William had now assembled an army of 60,000 men, of whom 50,000 were cavalry; and a fleet amounting, it is said, to 3000 vessels great and small. The attack was begun by the Norwegian army under Halfager, who entered the Humber with 300 sail. The Norwegians, in the first engagement, defeated and put to flight an English army under Morcar, earl of Northumberland, and Edwin, earl of Mercia, the brothers-in-law of Harold, who, in the meantime, collecting a formidable force, revenged this loss by the total rout and dispersion of the army of Halfager. This victory, though honorable to Harold, was the immediate cause of his ruin; he lost many of his bravest officers in the action, and disgusted the rest by refusing to distribute the Norwegian spoils among them.

William the Norman had, in the meantime, landed at Pevensey on the coast of Sussex. The best politicians of the court of Harold endeavored to dissuade that prince from hazarding an immediate action. It would have been unquestionably his wisest plan to have waited the relaxation of the first ardor of the Normans; to have harassed them by skirmishes, and cut off their provisions, which, in the end, must, in all probability, have given the English a complete victory. But the ardor of Harold could not brook delay; he hastened with impetuosity to a general engagement, on which depended the fate of his kingdom; and in the memorable battle of Hastings, which was fought (October 14, 1066) on both sides with desperate courage from the morning till the setting of the sun, the death of Harold, and the total discomfiture of his army, after some ineffectual struggles of further resistance, placed William, duke of Normandy, in possession of the throne of England.

CHAPTER VI.

On the Government, Laws, and Manners of the Anglo-Saxons.

THE period of British history to which we are now arrived may be properly concluded by some reflections on the government and manners of the Anglo-Saxons, as there are several particulars in the structure of that government, and in the policy of this ancient people, which are supposed to have had their influence on the British constitution, such as we find it at present, and are topics from which speculative men and political writers have not unfrequently drawn conclusions applicable to our own times, and the present system of government.

The Saxons, who enjoyed the same liberty with all the ancient Germans, retained that political freedom in their new settlements to which they had been accustomed in their own country. Their kings, who were no more than the chiefs of a clan or tribe, possessed no greater authority than what is commonly annexed to that character in all barbarous nations. The chief, or king, was the first among the citizens, but his authority depended more on his personal abilities than on his rank. "He was even so far considered as on a level with the people, that a stated price was fixed on his head, and a legal fine was levied on his murderer which, although proportioned to his station, and superior to that paid for the life of a subject, was a sensible mark of his subordination to the community."*

;

A people, in this period of society, it is not to be imagined would be very strict in maintaining a regular succession of their princes. Although the family of the prince had its respect and acknowledged superiority, there was no rule steadily observed with regard to succession to the throne, which was generally regulated by present convenience, always paying the first attention to the progeny of the last monarch, if any of them was of age and capacity for government. In the case of minors, the succession generally took a collateral turn an uncle was promoted to the government, and having children himself, the sceptre, at his demise, often went to his descendants, to the exclusion of the elder line. All these changes, however, required the concurrence, or,

*

Hume, Appendix I, of which the following account of the Anglo-Saxon government is an abridgment.

at least, the tacit acquiescence of the people. Thus the monarchies were not, strictly speaking, either elective or hereditary; and though, in some instances the decree of a prince was followed in the choice of his successor, they can as little be regarded as properly testamentary. The suffrages of the states sometimes conferred the crown, but they more frequently recognised the person whom they found established, provided he was of the blood royal. Our knowledge of the Anglo-Saxon history and antiquities, though much the subject of research, disquisition, and controversy, is, after all, too imperfect to afford us means of determining, with any certainty, the prerogatives of the crown and privileges of the people, or of giving any accurate delineation of their government. This uncertainty must result, in a great measure, from their political system being actually various in the different kingdoms of the Heptarchy; and, likewise, from its undergoing changes and alterations during the course of six centuries, from the Saxon invasion to the Norman conquest.

One great feature, common to all the kingdoms of the Heptarchy, we know, was the national council, called the Wittenagemot, or assembly of the wise men, whose consent was requisite for enacting laws, and for ratifying the chief acts of public administration. The preambles to all the laws of the Saxon monarchs still remaining, leave no doubt as to the existence of this council; but who were its constituent members is a matter of considerable uncertainty. The bishops and abbots were unquestionably an essential part; and it is as certain that this supreme court regulated both ecclesiastical and civil matters. It likewise appears that the aldermen, or (what was a synonymous term) the earls and governors of counties, had a seat in this assembly; but the doubt is whether the commons had any place there, or who were those wites, or wise men, who are mentioned as discriminated from the prelates and from the nobility. This is a point which the factions of modern times have chosen to take up and dispute with as much acrimony as if it materially interested us under the present constitution to settle with precision what it was a thousand years ago. The monarchical party affirm that these wites, or wise men, were judges, or men learned in the laws. The advocates for the rights of the people hold them to have been the representatives of boroughs, or what we now call commons. Perhaps the truth lies between these opinions. As the idea of representation is too refined for a very rude system of government, the most rational opinion seems to be, that the wites, or sapientes, were such men of fortune, landholders, as fell neither under the denomination of clergy nor nobility, but whose weight and consequence was such as to entitle them, without any election, to compeer at the assembly of the states, and to assist in their deliberations. Whether there was any requisite extent of land, that was understood to bestow this qualification, is altogether uncertain.

One thing undoubted, with regard to the Anglo-Saxon government, is, that it was extremely aristocratical. The royal authority was very limited; the people as a body were of little weight or consideration. After the abolition of the Heptarchy, the noblemen, who resided at a distance in the provinces, where the inspection and influence of the king would but very improperly extend itself, must naturally have acquired almost the whole power and authority. The great offices, too, which they enjoyed, became, in a manner, hereditary in their families; and the command of the military force of the province, which it was necessary to give them from the continual danger of foreign invasion from the Danes, would naturally very much increase the power of the nobles. Another circumstance, productive of the same consequence, was the imperfection of the administration under a ferocious and military people, which contributed much to introduce that strong connection of clientship which we find subsisting in all nations in a similar state of society. Even the inhabitants of towns placed themselves under the protection of some particular nobleman, and feeling the ties of that connection more strongly than any other, were accustomed to look up to his patronage as that of a sovereign. The laws even favored these ideas. A client, though a freeman, was supposed so much to belong to his patron, that his murderer was obliged to pay a fine to the latter, as a compensation for his loss, in like manner as he paid a fine to the master for the murder of a slave. Many of the inferior rank of citizens entered into associations, and subscribed a bond, obliging themselves to be faithful to each other in all cases of danger to any one of the confederates; to protect his person, to revenge his wrongs, to pay the fines which he might incur through accident, and to contribute to his funeral charges. This last practice, as well as the connection of client and patron, are strong proof of the imperfection of laws, and of a weak administration. Only to remedy such evils would men have recurred to these connections and associations.

+

The Saxons were, divided, as all the other German nations, into three ranks of men, the noble, the free, and the slaves. The nobles were called thanes, and these were of two kinds--the king's thanes and the lesser thanes. The latter seem to have been dependent on the former, and to have received lands, for which they either paid rent or military services. There were two laws of the Anglo-Saxons, which breathe a spirit very differ ent from what one would naturally expect from the character of the age, when the distinction of superior and inferior is commonly very strongly marked. One of the laws of Athelstan declared, that a merchant who had made three long sea voyages on his own account was entitled to the quality of thane; and another declared that a ceorle, or husbandman, who had been able to pur chase five hides of land, or five plough-gates, and who had a

chapel, a kitchen, a hall, and a bell, was entitled to the same rank. The freemen of the lower rank, who were denominated ceorles, cultivated the farms of the thanes for which they paid rent, and they appear to have been removable at the pleasure of the thane.

The lowest and most numerous of the orders was that of the slaves or villains; of these slaves there were two kinds, the household slaves, and those employed in the cultivation of the lands: of the latter species are the serfs, which we find at this day in Poland, in Russia, and in others of the northern states. A master had not, among the Anglo-Saxons, an unlimited power over his slaves. He was fined for the murder of a slave, and if he mutilated one, the slave recovered his liberty.

The laws of Edgar inform us that slavery was the lot of all prisoners taken in war. From the continual wars that subsisted, first between the Saxons and Britons, and afterwards between the several kingdoms of the Heptarchy, this class of men could not have failed to be numerous.

Though the Anglo-Saxon government seems, upon the whole, to have been extremely aristocratical, there were still some considerable remains of the ancient democracy of the Germans. The courts of the Decennary, the Hundred, and the County, were well calculated to defend general liberty, and to restrain the power of the nobility. In the country courts, or shire-motes, the freeholders were convened twice a year, and received appeals from the inferior courts. The cause was determined by a majority of voices; and the bishop and alderman, who sat as presidents, had no more to do, than to collect the suffrages and deliver their own opinion. An appeal lay from all the courts to the king, but this was not practised unless in matters of importance. The alderman received a third of the fines that were levied in these courts, and the remaining two-thirds went to the king, which formed no inconsiderable part of the crown's revenue. As writing was little practised in those ages, the most remarkable civil transactions were finished in presence of these courts, such as the promulgation of testaments, the manumission of slaves, and the concluding of all important bargains and contracts.

The punishments inflicted by the Anglo-Saxon courts of judicature, and the methods of proof employed in causes, were much the same as we have remarked among the other barbarous nations of northern origin. The pecuniary fines for every species of crime, and the modes of proof by the judgment of God, by the ordeal of fire or water, by single combat, or by producing a certain number of evidences, named compurgators, who swore that they believed the person spoke the truth;-all these we have observed to have been common to the Germanic nations, and to those of Scandinavian origin, except, as we have before remarked, the Visigoths and Ostrogoths.

As to the military force of the nation during the government of

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »